The large family of 6 or more children is becoming outmoded. The large family usually have a diametrically different culture and milieu to that of the small family. Parental interaction is rare to nonexistent. As a result of this little or none parental interaction, children in large families do not
develop the close relationship with their parents that children from small families have. In fact, the concept of a close and intense parent-child relationship in large families is quite an anathema to put it mildly.
Furthermore, since it is impossible or near so for parents of large families to effectively raise such a large number of children effectively by themselves, there is an unwritten and unspoken parental expectation that the oldest/older child, especially daughters, to raise their younger siblings. This phenonema is called the parentified child. Those are children who assume the parental roles in their families, instead of having a normal childhood.
Because of little or no parental interaction with their children in large to very large families, it is quite rife for children to mainly interact with each other. They either raise themselves and/or each other. Children having little or no parental interaction have lower levels of intellectual maturity. They possess more childish mannerisms because all they interact with are other children who are on the lower, same, and/or higher level. It is not uncommon for children from large families to state that they learn more from their siblings than they do from their parents. Studies show that in order for children to develop properly, parental interaction is important; however, this is missing in the average large family.
Yes, there is a marked difference between children from small and children from large families in terms of parental interaction and in intellectual/academic development. Children in large families are also inculcated not to value their individuality and to consider themselves to be put of a group. They often have little or no sense of self because they were taught that to have a sense of self is considered to be self-indulgent, self-centered, and in general, selfish. They are taught not to voice their needs and their individual needs are last.
The concept of privacy is nil in the large family environment. They are taught that personal privacy is totally unnecessary. Psychologists and social scientists have emphasized the importance of personal space and privacy to the human psyche but it falls on deaf ears in large families. People in large families are used to doing things in crowds. They have a crowd mentality and are quite uncomfortable with solitude and/or being alone. There are many ways which the large family environment dramatically differs from that of the small family environment! Let us add to the discusson on this fascinating subject!
I'm the youngest of ten
and I def feel like I didn't get enough attention
and I felt most of my life the need for crowd
It's very difficult yes
On the other hand, it is possible, or was,
for large families to flourish. But it takes exceptional parents
It's okay to learn to share and not be "selfish"
The large family system is extremely problematic. There is such an unequal parity between the siblings. Oldest children in such families have no childhood to speak of because they are saddled with the responsibility of being parents to their younger siblings. Parents in large families seldom interact with their children, leaving that responsibility to their oldest/older children, especially daughters. Middle children, forget about it, are totally ignored in large families. If they exist, fine, and if not, well..... In other words, they are mostly in the way. As a result of their nebulous status, many middle children either become more unobtrusive than they actually are or become more vocal and aggressive in a bid to garner parental attention. Well, the youngest, of course, have the longest childhood and the least responsibilities of the birth orders in a large family. He/she has the longest and most carefree childhood and adolescence of all. If you hear anyone say that they loved being part of a large family, guess what- they are ALWAYS the youngest child. Most oldest and middle children DETEST being in a large famiily. If not, they are in DEEP, DEEP, DEEP DENIAL. Denial is such a complex thing!
Are you from a large family?
If not, I would advise you not to assume or guess because I'm living proof from experience but as I say, every family is different whether large or small depending on the parents, and their ability. Any family can be bad or good depending on the ability of the parents.
I know people who were and this abovementioned description aptly rights them to a "T". They portend that they were unhappy. They further remarked that they grew up in extreme socioeconomic want. No, they DID NOT LIKE it one bit! Life in large families tend to be highly precarious socioeconomically, psychologically, emotionally, and/or other related factors. I would not wish being in a large family on my worst and most mortal, and intensely, hellishly adversarial enemy!
nothing fits the rule for everything. there are different experiences with everything. I think this discussion is closed! It's going nowhere. Have a nice day.
Although there are different experiences regarding each family size, the overall consensus of large families are that children often raise themselves and/or each other because parental involvement is either nonexistent or close to it. There is no close parent-child interaction as there is in small families. Because they are left to their own devices, children from large families have a rougher and tougher attitude emotionally. They have no conception of selfhood. In fact, most children from large families have an abysmal sense of self because they grew up in a crowd environment. They have a crowd consciousness as opposed to children in small families who are not afraid to assert and express their individuality. The list goes on and on about the pecularities of the large family sytem.
In many cases I'm sure.(prob most but not all) I express my individuality, everyone of my siblings is so different,
as for others, I know of large families of which the parents are very very there for them, in these cases, the mom stays home fulltime.
It may not be likely but is possible.
Yes, although many mothers of large families are home fulltime, it is impossible for parents to raise a large number of children by themselves. It is impossible to do. Just do simple mathematics. It is way easier for parents to raise 1,2, 3, or possibly 4 children by themselves than it is to raise 6 or more children by themselves. That is why oldest/older children are compelled to raise their younger siblings. Honey, you are a deep, deep, deep denial. As my father used to say face the facts.
Now, in large families, without any exception, mothers do not raise their children, it is the oldest/older sibling. Mothers just cannot raise a large brood of children by themselves. They cannot- pure and simple. Simple logistics. A case in point in this is the Duggar family. It is the oldest/older daughters who are raising their younger siblings, not Michelle. Parental interaction is next to nil in large families. Children raise themselves and only interact with each other which explains the often childish mannerisms of children from large families. I have encountered children from large families from elementary school to high school level. They were the most feral and backward of all the children I have encountered.
There was a study done by Lillian Gelmont and Frances Moralla, both social scientists, who portended that there was a strict correlation between large families and low academic achievement. Both Gelmont and Moralla indicated that children from large families had a poorer showing on IQ tests and other educational measures as opposed to children from small families who did exceedingly better on such educational measures. Case in point, the children from large families in my elementary and junior high school were low academic achievers.
Their average grades were from C to D averages. Contrast that to children from small families who were on the honor roll. I was one of those children on the honor roll. All of us from small families were quite prodigious because we interacted with our parents more. As an only child, I had regular conversations with my parents. They imparted knowledge to me. By contrast, all children from large families have are their siblings. Siblings do not have the vastness of knowledge and expertise that parents have which explains why children from large families are more rudimentary in their vocabulary and other mannerisms than children from small families.
Another study by R.B. Zajonc, another social scientist, substantiated that the larger the family, the developed the intellectual environment is. How could the intellectual environment being developed when all a child has to talk to are other siblings, please! The study went on to further stated that firstborn and older children of large families have lower IQs than similarly situated children from small families. The large family is totally disadvantageous all around. You may defend its pecularities but facts indicate otherwise. As I have reiterated, I would not wish the large family on my worst nemesis.
I may want to add that because children from large families are mostly unsupervised, they are often drawn into deleterious activities such as gangs. Many people in gangs come from large families. They are seeking the attention that they never had at home. Many children in large families are benignly neglected on the part of the parents. You yourself admitted this and yet you defend this system- what a totally inverse logical premise. A noted actor/producer, the youngest of nine children, admitted that he was a neglected child. He indicated that he dropped out of school as a young teenager and roamed the streets aimlessly. He got into some scuffles and ended up in jail. I am demonstrating that children from large families tend to have a more hardscrabble and "street" life than children from small families who received love, attention, and care from their parents. Adieu, adieu, adieu!
I'm not disagreeing with you totally, I'm just stating the fact in my situation. I am the youngest of ten and while much of what you say is true, and I personally would rather have been from a smaller family, what I am saying is I am a very high IQ-- above above average, and was always on the honor roll. Just pointing out your're not correct on every assumption !
I am the the middle child (oldest girl from a family of 11 children). I agree that it can be quite a challenge for the parents from a large family to give enough attention to so many children, but it's not always a bad thing. I loved growing up in a large family and would not give it up for anything. Yes, I helped raise my younger siblings, but enjoyed the responsibility very much and never felt neglected. I got along very well with all my brothers and sisters growing up and we are still all very close.
As far as education goes, my family was sort of an exception. My parents decided to homeschool all of there children because they thought it would help keep us away from trouble-some groups. This held us back academically at first, but only made us try a little harder and take college a little more seriously. My older brother graduated with a degree in clinical laboratory science, the other with a pharmacy degree, and I am only a few months away from getting a degree graphic design and a minor in photography. We were all honor role students and were greatly loved by all of our professors.
I had many friends from large families that weren't so successful. So i'm not saying that it's always great to come from a large family, but I love what I have and wouldn't give it up for anything. I agree that it can be a very challenging task to raise so many children right and supply them with enough support and attention, especially coming from a poor family. It takes loving and caring parents to do that right, and I guess I feel special that I was lucky enough to have that kind of care.
You were one of the lucky ones. An overwhelming majority of children in large and very large families (6 children and more per household) receive little to very little parental attention. This is quite de rigueur in large and very large families. Children in such families raise themselves and each other. You are on target stating that you, as the oldest daughter, raised your siblings. This is what oldest daughter in large and very large families do. They are the unpaid parents and au pairs. They must be available 24/7/365 for siblings and parents. They have NO INDIVIDUAL lives of their own.
In large and very large families, some children will receive the lion's share of parental care(the youngest one) while other children will either be benignly neglecte or worse(middle and/or oldest children). Oldest children in large and very large families are seen as quite disposable and sacrificable in favor of the younger children. Yes, in large and very large families, oldest children DON'T matter at all except to be serviceable and to be the family mascots so to speak. If an oldest child is not serviceable to his/her parents and/or younger siblings, he/she is deemed unworthy and cast aside. Seldom is an oldest child in large and very large families seen as lovable children and worthwhile persons like oldest children in small and medium sized families are.
Middle in large and very large families, fuggedaboutit, they are LOST souls. They are lost in the shuffle. They are literally in a sink or swin familial environment. These are the children who literally have to raise themselves. God help them if they are not up to the task, they........well........DROWN and SINK......SINK FAST. Life in large and very large families is not warm and encouraging like it is in small families. In small families, children who need extra help, receive it. In large families, uh huh, such children fall through the cracks and are doomed in more ways than one. Parents in small families are attentive to their children while their counterparts in large and very large families are of the attitude, well, let THEM do the BEST they can, if they CAN'T, well TOUGH!
The only ones who are content with the large and very large family arrangement are the youngest. Well, why not, they have THE BEST of the large family world. They do not have to assume any responsibility as everything is done for them by parents and/or older siblings. In large and very large families, oldest siblings have to assume responsibilities in early childhood while youngest children NEVER have to assume familial responsibilities ever. They seem to have it made in the shade familially.
Children in large and very large families have a more tougher and cynical view of life as their lives are tougher and more hardscrabble than most. Since they come from either poor or impoverished background, they tend to be satisfied with very little. They are content being poor and have a poverty consciousness. They cannot understand people who are more socioeconomically affluent than they are. To many people from large families, poverty is quite fine and an acceptable and normal lifestyle. They are used to and are comfortable with want. What is socioeconomic penury to the average person is quite normal for those from large families. The large and very large families is quite different from other family systems. As a result of their impoverished socioeconomic conditions, they tend to be rough around the edges.
In large and very large families, there is an inverse psychology and way of thinking. In small and medium sized families, parents support their children and provide the best for them. In large and very large families, that does not matter to these parents in the least. In large and very large families, children work, some from late childhood, either to supplement the family income or to buy extras for themselves which is normal for children in the small to medium family household. Children from large and very large families have no monies for health care and many of the things other families take for granted. It is quite typical for children in large and very large families to receive outside help and/or assistance in order to them to have a subsistent existence.
In small and medium sized families, parents have an active role in their children's lives. In large and very large families, parents are little involved in their children's lives- their attitude towards their children is quite nonchalant. In such families, children are seen as precious entities but seen as quite disposable in some ways. They are just THERE no more no less. In many large and very large families, children are seen as merely obligations. People I know from large families relayed to me that their parents were NEVER warm towards them. They, to their parents were merely considered to be noisome obligations.
My maternal grandmother treated all her 10 children as noisome obligations. My mother related that she was often short with the children. I, on the other hand, remember my relationship with my parents as warm and loving. See the contrast between small family parenting and large family parenting. This is why so many children from large and very large families tend to be distant, abrupt, and nonnurturing parents-this is what they learned from their parents. In the world of large and very large families, up is down and down is up.
After reading your profile
a lot of kids who were only children whom I've met were really lonely and wanted siblings- it's an individulal thing I'm guessing. I don't think there's a cookie cutter image for everyone or every situation.
I'm against planned parenthood because I don't believe in abortion.
I believe in family planning such as planning not to have a lot of children, that's fine.
But if one does get pregnant....I think they should own up to it and not abort or (kill) the baby.
I'm sure it's very challenging in cases of rape or incest,
but I know there are so many people who want to adopt and cannot afford to, who would be excellent parents.
I think it's wrong to abort a baby if it's going to have birth defects because I believe it's up to God not us. But maybe you don't believe in God or a creator and therefore think it's your responsibility to consider what you feel is "your job"
But as I say, sure, you don't have to have a lot of kids,,you could used natural family planning or birth control of some kind. I just wouldn't go and have 5 abortions or anything.
I believe that the baby is a human before it's born and especially partial birth abortion is horrible as they kill the baby as it's about to be born which is ridiculous.
Oh no, all of the only children I knew LOVED being an only child. It is apparent that you have a bias against only children. Typical response. I was never lonely as with all the only children we know. I had a happy childhood in which I received attention. You portended that you did not. Do I denote some jealousy here? Heh heh!
I have no bias. I know a man named dan who was very insecure as an only child. again, you can't use a standard "for all". You could say "for many" not for all. I was just pointing out some exceptions.
Oh, btw, no need to get petty! You are showing your immaturity and you are probably older than me! I'm guessing though I could be wrong.
One thing I do value about my upbringing was a sense of decency that my parents taught us, that we're all pretty much "nice" people really. We may not have all the knowledge I wish we had, but what I'm saying is, you can't really be spoiled as a kid in a large family and I learned the benefits of hard work. that's all I have to say on the matter.
No, no jealousy!
No humane person believes in partial birth abortion, please.
Again with this? Why do you keep making threads with the same argument? I was willing to read your points the first few times you made this argument, but now it's quite tiresome. You have few studies (and terrible ones at that), a minuscule amount of research and nothing new to add to this. It just seems like you have some weird obsessive dislike of large families for no apparent reason. Did a large family crush your dreams or step on your toes or something? Why do you even care?
You use "without exception" and other trigger words to try and make your "argument" appear as if it has no holes, when in all actuality, it is an empty argument based solely on mostly un-backed up claims from "friends" and other acquaintances.
I can find a scientific study that finds exactly the opposite of what your studies find-- so in all honesty, all that research and studies and whatever really prove nothing. The family dynamic is extremely different from case to case.
I come from a large family. I have a 3.91 in school. Got a 31 on my ACT. All my siblings aced school, have adjusted lives, feel equally loved by our parents, were not raised by each other, grew up in upper middle class standards and had normal lives.
Get over it. There are exceptions, your argument is not steadfast and it's probably not even true in a majority of the cases. Large families are fine. Small families are fine. Single mom's are fine, single dad's are fine. A family comes in many shapes and sizes and if it's not your own family, mind your own business.
All in all, this is an interesting discussion. Everyone has a right to his/her premise on the subject. Good night ,all, and please contnue the discussion!
My mom was an only child until her early teens, when a sister finally came along, so she is in a unique situation to have experienced both being an only child and having a sibling, although not multiple siblings. She was lonely as an only child. She loved having a little sister to play with. Despite their age difference, they were very close and still are today. She had five children because she didn't want us to be lonely ike she was. I liked having my siblings around to play with. We were happy and well cared for and loved by our parents.
On the other hand, I'm certain there are only children who love being onlies, and people from big families who hate having all those siblings. There are also good parents with both large and small numbers of kids, and bad parents with both small and large numbers of kids. Every case is different and every situation unique.
I have seen the OP paint her broad brush across this topic before, to stereotype certain kinds of people and families. However, like I said before, every person, every family and every situation is unique. I tried to get this point across to the OP on one of her other forum posts on this very topic, which she apparently delights in rehashing again and again. However, she insists that her one-dimensional thinking is absolutely correct, "without exception."
If a poster disagrees with her stereotyping, it usually falls on deaf ears and she says "good night."
What is the preoccupation with large families? Why keep making the same forum post over and over? Take a deep breath and let it go.
To reiterate, I personally know people from large families-relatives, my parents, classmates, friends, cousins, and acquaintances. I know of where I speak. Children from large families for the most part have little or no parental interaction. They have to raise themselves. For example, there was an elementary school friend who was 1 of 20 children. She stated to me and other classmates that her parents did not raise her at all, all they did were to continuously have children. She stated that her oldest/older sisters raised her. When the oldest/older sisters were out on their own, she raised herself and it showed. She was completely feral. At school, her parents were hardly even seen at school events in comparison to other parents.
Her family were also the poorest socioeconomically. All of her clothes were donations and if it were not for the school designated doctors, she and her siblings would not have received any type of medical and dental care. She was always out and about because her home environment was crowded. Classmates would remark how messy her house was. She was always at my house to have some peace and respite from the maddening crowd. While other children refused to befriend her, I DID! Okay, I know what I am talking about when it comes to large families.
Another child in my elementary school was one of 6 children. Her parents had no monies and she regularly shook down other classmates and schoolmates to obtain monies for lunch and/or other necessities. She singled out the more socioeconomically affluent children from small families for this. She also had a hardscrabble life, raising herself and getting by. One of her siblings was also a school bully.
I had a cousin who was the youngest of 15 children. She had to raise herself as her parents and older siblings did not want to be bothered with her. I had to teach her how to read and my parents had to buy her clothes and give her books. She also was feral and toiugh and rough around the edges. She always wanted to fight someone.
One of my maternal aunts, the 3rd of 10 children, had to raise her younger siblings until she got tired and left home at 16. She received no parental attention and feel for the first person (a male) who gave her the prerequisite attention. She got pregnant and had to forfeit her life. She always complained to anyone who would listen how the family considered her to be a mascot. My maternal cousins, 8 children, were the poorest of my family members. They did not have the proper clothing and nutrition. My parents and I donated clothing and vitamins to them on a constant basis. Three of the daughters had teenage pregnancies because they did not receive the prerequisite parental attention. Need I say more. Also, they are the least educated and impoverished of all the cousins.
My mother was the oldest of 10. Of course, the family was socioeconomically impoverished. All the clothes and books that she and her siblings received were from donations from a wealthier, childless aunt. She left home as soon as possible to attend high school and college albeit on scholarships. She was the bedrock of the family. They depended upon her to get them through even to this day. Out of the 10 children in the family, only 3 are highly successful which are my mother, my middle uncle, and my youngest aunt. The rest are from barely middling to outright poor. The other 7 refused to make the necessary opportunities to improve their lives. Want me to say more?
There was a coworker who married a man who is 1 of 17 children. She indicated that her husband never knew his parents at all. He actually considered his oldest sister to be his mother. See the pecularities in this arrangement. That is what I am talking about. I have many more stories to tell regarding the large family. If I did not personally know people from large families, I would not be writing this and/or writing hubs on the subject. Besides knowing people from large families which include my parents, blood relatives, and non-blood friends and acquaintances, I have studied the subject in a sociology course in college. I KNOW what I AM talking about! Most large families are what I have described, they have a philosphy, psychology, and way of life which are diametrically opposed to that of the small family. In essence, small family life is indefinitely better than large family life. Well, that is all for tonight and I bid adieu to all!
Another thing is 80% or greater of large fmailies with 5+ kids are relgious. Let's look at famous ones:
I know the Jacksons grew up poorly. The Kennedys had money but ti was still for religion
Even if you have financial means, is it really logical? Just because a few larger families may be able to give their kids education ro they are unspoileddoes not justify having a large family. They likely used grants and scholarhips just like middle class smaller families. Then what about parental attention? I also think when those from larger families attack others it means they were insecure. I do agree about the Duggar family. The girls are nothing but mini-parents. Fans think it is wonderful but they are cheating the girls out of living their own life. I wonder how many of thm actually like raisng siblings. In one interview, they said they all wanted large fmailies but it seemed they only say that for PR. For some reason, they are taught small families breed selfish children. There are much worse things than growing up an only child. IMO I would rather see 2 spoiled kids than 10 neglected.
I forgot to add Michellel Duggar is the youngest in her family and Jim Bob is one of two.Michelle is the only one in her family with those beliefs.
I totally concur with you. However, children in small families are not "spoiled." They are just loved. "Spoil" is a word that people from large famlies use to describe children from small families who are socioeconomically more affluent and whose parents can easily provide for them as opposed to their situation of perpetual socioeconomic struggle. Amanda, you are so on target with your statements. The average child in large to very large families do not receive individualized parental attention and nurturance.
It is clearly impossible for parents to give love and individualized attention to a large number of children. Some children will receive love while others suffer benign neglect. Amanda, many people of large to very large families have inverse logic. They know that their familial situation is less than desirable; nevertheless, they rationalize their less than positive life instead of facing up to their quite dire situation. The main theme in their lives is D-E-N-I-A-L!
Amanda, people from large families are imbued with a poverty and struggle mentality. All they know is a penurious, hardscrabble life. Because life has been so difficult for them and they had to live on crumbs, it is unconceivable that people can live a life without struggle and full of the better things in life. People from large families deride those from small families out of bitterness. People from large families believe that everyone should struggle like them and live tenuously from hand to mouth, ekeing out a living. How sad!
Amanda, you are right, many people from large families are so miserable but they are loathe to acknowledge that fact. To do so, it would mean that their familial lifestyle is wrong and errant! Of course, they are subconsciously unhappy and that it is why they use displacement mechanisms when others critique their family lifestyle. I have written a hub on the same subject. They just rationalize their lifestyle away.....................
The large family have quite a different modus operandi and psychology from that of the small family and it is indeed NOT PRETTY AT ALL! Maybe someone else besides me should do a hub on the subject! I did enough hubs on large families. Let someone write about the subject! Glad that the discussion has continued!
I am the ninth of fourteen. Some of these things were right on point in regards to my childhood. There was no interaction between my parents and me. My older siblings were tasked with caring for the younger ones. We lived in absolute squalor. Ambition was completely prohibited. The only time we got any attention was to receive a beating. Which validates what some other studies have concluded.
It has been shown that in large families abuse, neglect, and incest are almost inevitable. My family confirms those studies. Yes I would not wish this on my worst enemy.
Getitrite, so true. At least YOU are honest in your assessment. Many from large families rationalize their dire situation and attack those who state the unadulterated truth! When they rationalize their situation, they are quite unhappy. They know that their familial situation is less than positive, so why front? Tell the truth and it will sent THEM free! Oh no, that is too difficult to do, so they are in the attack mode to anyone who states that large family life is detrimental, espcially to the children.
Getitrite, my mother was the oldest of 10 children. While she was a child, she had caretaking duties of her younger siblings. She was smart enough to leave home at 14 to attend boarding school and my aunt, the 3rd child and 2nd oldest girl had to assume child rearing duties. My grandparents nevertheless kept popping out those kids. My aunt left home as soon as possible. The only clothes my mother and her siblings wore were from charitable donations and from a wealthier, childfree aunt! To say that they were impoverished would be the understatement of the year. Yes, the parents were "religious". None were close to their parents.
Out of 10 children in the family, only 3 obtained tertiary education and a middle-middle to upper middle class lifestyle, the majority are either poor to impoverished. When one grows up in the large family system, everything is totally askewed. Children raising children is an undeniable fact of life in the large family system. That is why large families are dysfunctional and detrimental, pure and single. Large families = hell, no more, no less! Thank you, Getitrite, for your story. It is greatly appreciated and substantiated what I already knew, studied, and read about large family "life"!
You also added an important point. Ambition and any form of a better socioeconomic life is routinely discouraged in large families. The culture of the large family emphasizes just the basic human needs of food, clothing, and shelter, if that. Everything is mere and basic survival.
Poverty and constant struggle is a lifestyle for large to very large families. Many people from large to very large families develop a poverty consciousness and a poverty mentality. They are quite comfortable living at what many of us consider to be poverty or near poverty. They do not wish to improve their lives socioeconomically; they are content to be poor. Any level of living beyond poverty and mere survival is considered to be wasteful, unnecessary, and superfluous. What considered to be extravagant to a person from a large to very large family is socioeconomically comfortable to the rest of us.
The average child in large to very large families are not encouraged to pursue cultural and intellectual activities. They are left to be on their own so to speak.
Parents of large to very large families are indeed uninvolved, unavailable, and non-nurturing. There was a sociology book addressing the large family. I read it in the store. I forgot the title of the book. It said that in large families, the parents are more distant, cold, and non-nurturing.
In my dealings with those from large to very large families, no one had a closing, loving relationship with his/her parents, only with siblings. In fact, many of those from large to very large families stated that they ACTUALLY HATED their parents and had no respect for them whatsoever! Go figure! Closing, loving parent-child relationships are totally nonexistent in large to very large families! This in turn makes people from large to very large families non-nurturing, perfunctory, cold, distant, and unloving parents so they had poor parental models.
Also, in large to very large families, parents are more likely to use corporal and other forms of harsher discipline than parents of small families who are more likely to discipline their children through educational and instructional means. The large family lifestyle is quite a dysfunctional and pathologial one!
Getitrite, I, too, would NEVER wish large family life on my worst enemy. The 9th circle of Hell is better than being in a large family. Small families are definitely better as I have stated many times.
This article is crap. I'm from a large family (8 kids) and not a single one of us dislikes being in a large family. Even the eldest (who indeed took on a mothering role) says she's grateful for all her siblings and that we are her best friends. I know plenty of 2-3 kid families where the oldest STILL takes on that annoyingly bossy mother role, but they never have the close bond all us siblings share.
It's true the youngest had mostly other kids to use as an example instead of parents, but rather than "extending" their childhood, they grew up faster since they had more social interactions to teach them consequences and show them the realities of the choices that they might make.
Each kid has their own distinct personality, and each kid values their alone time more than gold since they didn't get much of it growing up (we're all adults now). They work well in teams and group settings, but also seek out activities that will help define them and set them apart.
I don't know where you got your information on large families, but you hit very few points accurately.
I came from a small family, and I haven't studied the problem of large family vs small family in the sense that it is presented here. But I will add that the large family is a menace to society. In a world where we must all share the same resources, allowing people to freely procreate and over populate the Earth like "farm animals gone wild" is not only an outrage, but also suicidal.
Just because a person "can" make babies doesn't mean they should! Just look at our polluted environment. Here in Florida we actually have mountains: mountains of trash and refuse! We've got enough people already, many who are just taking up space and singing karaoke. It would be a good idea to have a moratorium on breeding, at least for a couple of years.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 17 months ago
According to an article from Business Insider, a study done by researchers Juhn & C. Andrew Zupann of Houston University along with Yona Rubinstein of the London School of Economics, children born into large families have lower likelihoods to succeed because with each additional child in the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
[Children from small families tend to be higher academic achievers. They have more monies which means more access to books and other forms of intellectual paraphernalia in their homes. They also interact with their parents more.]Studies have consistently validated and substantiated that children...
by Christian L Perry 11 months ago
What is the root cause of poverty in the world?
by Justamama 7 years ago
Anyone here have a "large family"?What is considered large?I have ten.
by Nichol marie 16 months ago
What is your Sterotype when you see a large family of 4 children or a small family of just 1 childDo u judge I dont judge on family size at all or those without children at all but I guesse this is a thing now
by Stacie L 5 years ago
After suffering a devastating miscarriage in December 2011, Michelle Duggar is trying to get pregnant again with her 20th child. The 19 Kids and Counting reality TV mom says she and husband Jim Bob Duggar are hoping to be "blessed" with another...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|